Fx 8350 with gtx 980 vs intel i7 4790k with gtx 970

[furiousss]

hello everyone,

I am looking on to build a new gaming pc. as the topic says, I have come across two different cpu's.
I know that the i7 4790k is far better. but the fx 8350 has 8 cores and would it be useful for future gaming? also whether Fx 8350 with gtx 980 outperform intel i7 4790k with gtx 970 [both are of same price].Any answer would be appreciated. [please don't suggest i5 4690k as it wont match the price and I would have to buy a gtx 970]

thanks in advance.

 

[quandao93]

lol.

 

[NightAntilli]

Funny how you guys call me a fanboy, while I agreed with Bossyfins' i5 recommendation. And in other threads I also recommend an i5, like this one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2585549/motherboard-cpu-combo-amd-intel-250.html

I know Intel CPUs have their place in gaming. You're the ones denying that AMD does as well. Look in the mirror before accusing someone of being a fanboy.

 

[furiousss]

@DubbleClick
Because there are many things that you do not think about and apparently don't understand, and you want to prove me wrong rather than trying to understand. So here we go again...

FX CPUs have lower minimums? Even though they do, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

GRID: 53 vs 58, both dropped below 60 but stuck above 50. No major difference. Advantage for Intel, but insignificant in reality.

Bioshock Infinite: Min of both unplayable, both average above 60 but are below 75. Advantage for Intel, but insignificant in reality.

Dirt: Again. Advantage for Intel, but insignificant in reality.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html


So lower minimums... That is somewhat true. But WHY? Because with DX11, only ONE core can communicate to the GPU at the same time. Considering that the FX CPUs have weaker cores, and that one core has to send ALL the data to the GPU, the FX CPUs will struggle a bit more at times causing the larger drops. With DX12 and Vulkan, where each core can communicate to the GPU independently, this will no longer be an issue. Mantle even showed this, where the FX-4170 had a higher minimum framerate than an i7 4770k. Since you like Tomshardware results so much;

AMD FX 8350 + AMD R9 290x(Mantle) - Min FPS 55.2 Avg FPS 77.6
AMD FX 4170 + AMD R9 290x(Mantle) - Min FPS 38.8 Avg FPS 58.7
Intel Core i7-4770k + AMD R9 290X(Direct X) Min FPS 37.4 Avg FPS 56.7
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-mantle-performance-benchmark,3860-4.html


I don't know what other 'evidence' you need, although you're probably only wanting to acknowledge 'evidence' that suits your biased view.

Speaking of other evidence, yes the R9 290x beats the GTX 970 at higher resolutions in a significant amount of games. Even the R9 290 sometimes does. Anandtech:

And if you're arguing about minimum framerates, the R9 290x can even compete with the GTX 980 at high resolutions:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga

And CPU limitations are still quite insignificant, even in DX11. This is one of the worst examples:

When an FX-4xxx beats not only an FX-8xxx, but also the i5 4690, you know something weird is going on. This is the exception, not the rule, and it's easily solved by setting the affinity in task manager of the FX CPUs to 4 cores converting it into a virtual FX-4. Most situations are like this, where even though the minimum is lower, it doesn't matter AT ALL:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera/5

So recommending the 970 over the 980 just because you have to choose between an FX and an i7 is nonsense. The weaker CPU with the stronger GPU is the smarter choice. Anyone who recommends the Intel with the GTX 970 must be biased towards Intel. There is no other conclusion.

you guys confuse a lot. by this answer can I conclude that fx 8350 with gtx 980 is better. waiting for more answers!!!

 

[Bossyfins]

Look for an i5 4460 with any h97 board. That would be best.

 

[furiousss]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

In India the difference is INR 10000 which is about $150.
The difference between gtx 970 and 980 is also INR 10000.

 

[Bossyfins]

Honestly, the 980 is not worth it. the 970 is about 10-20% slower than the 980, but almost 250$ less.. Again, i5 4460 with h97 baord and 970. Best value to performance

 

[furiousss]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

In India the difference between fx 8350 and i7 4790k is INR 10000+ which is about $150+.Same is for gtx 970 and 980.

 

[HomerThompson]

would games in future utilize all 8 cores of fx 8350

Games in the present use all 8 cores and i5s and i7s still smoke FX chips.

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

The i7-4790k is the way to go unless you can afford the jump to the hexacore i7-5820k.

 

[Bossyfins]

the i7 4790k benchmarks higher than the 5820k in gaming. 4790k all the way

 

[HomerThompson]

the i7 4790k benchmarks higher than the 5820k in gaming. 4790k all the way

If you're running at stock, sure, since the 4790k has a monster 4.2GHz all cores turbo at stock.

 

[Bossyfins]

4.4* lol 😛

 

[HomerThompson]

4.4* lol 😛

4.4 is the stock turbo only for single and dual core workloads

 

[Bossyfins]

Oh is that so? #TheMoreYouKnow

 

[Onus]

Hmmm, seems to be a little warm in here.
With two CPUs that have different (and not necessarily equal) strengths, it will always be possible to cherry-pick benchmarks to favor one or the other. This suggests to me two things:
1. The specific [types of] titles to be played might need to be compared for a benchmark to be of any value. Chip "X" may beat the stuffing out of chip "Y" in 99% of benchmarks, but if "Y" beats "X" in the one title that matters to me, then "Y" may yet be the better choice.
2. Alternate measures may need to be selected, that may not ordinarily be used. These might include heat (and thus fan noise) and power consumption. In the matter of the GTX980 vs. GTX970, will the last .5GB of VRAM issue on the 970 rear its ugly head, or not?
At the end of the day, it takes a pretty big difference in benchmarks to translate into real-world experience, especially when you can offset some differences with minor adjustments in settings.
For my part, having an i5-3570K and a FX-8320, I can tell you that for my uses, the i5 is consistently faster, however by no stretch of my imagination is anything on the FX "sufferably" slower; most of the time there's little if any perceivable difference.

 

[quandao93]

Hey guy, dont try to convince him anything about going for "a place on the market." If he gives two options. Just answer it, like I did before everyone else in this thread. And in this case the 4790k option was for the best. Next time dont butt in for "a place on the market," If you didnt say anything this wouldnt be a big thread, or give the guy second opinion... LOL

 

[Bossyfins]

That isnt the point though. We are giving the best option. Unless he strictly said 3790k or 8350, then it would be different. I will stick by my suggestion an i5 4460 and 970. Unfollowing thread

 

[quandao93]

hello everyone,

I am looking on to build a new gaming pc. as the topic says, I have come across two different cpu's.
I know that the i7 4790k is far better. but the fx 8350 has 8 cores and would it be useful for future gaming? also whether Fx 8350 with gtx 980 outperform intel i7 4790k with gtx 970 [both are of same price].Any answer would be appreciated. [please don't suggest i5 4690k as it wont match the price and I would have to buy a gtx 970]

thanks in advance.

kthanks.

 

[DubbleClick]

Funny how you guys call me a fanboy, while I agreed with Bossyfins' i5 recommendation. And in other threads I also recommend an i5, like this one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2585549/motherboard-cpu-combo-amd-intel-250.html

I know Intel CPUs have their place in gaming. You're the ones denying that AMD does as well. Look in the mirror before accusing someone of being a fanboy.

That's your reply? Let's look what has happened so far:
Your comment to the benchmarks I posted: Irrelevant differences, and even though an i7 4790k + gtx 970 would followingly slightly exceed fx 8350 + gtx 980 performance, you said it's not worth the extra price. Although, actually, the i7 4790k + gtx 970 is CHEAPER than the fx 8350 + gtx 980.
Downsides to i7 + 970 gtx: NONE at 1080p gaming or other software.
Downsides to fx 8350 + gtx 980: Costs more, less performance.

Your fazit: fx 8350 + gtx 980 is better, I'm a fanboy.
My fazit: i7 4790k + gtx 970 is better, I delivered meaningful arguments while you have actually failed to even UNDERSTAND what I say.

Amd cpu's have a market place, I do not deny that and recommend them for budget rendering or work builds. However, for gaming at a budget of more than $300 for a total build, they have ZERO relevance. There's always a better intel alternative currently, which will simply not change with dx12.

Which is the next point, you still seem to have absolutely ZERO understanding of HOW a game is built. You're saying that dx12 will automatically distribute load efficiently across cores, which is true, but ONLY for API functions. For the large majority of tasks, or if the game isn't well optimized anyway, the API overhead is small. In that case, dx12 won't help. A bit, maybe, but not even worth to mention. And when looking at current games, would you say optimization is a major importance to game developers? It is not, you can see that in 9/10 titles being released. Why (few) devs were asking for dx12, you ask? Because it helps or enables creating more complex scenes to be displayed. Not because they find optimizing a game for a year fun, to not actually make any profit with the extra work done.

 

[DubbleClick]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

In India the difference between fx 8350 and i7 4790k is INR 10000+ which is about $150+.Same is for gtx 970 and 980.

i7 4790k: 23.9k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/intel-i7-4790k-processor/p/itmdyzqrmagcf5pb

i5 4690k: 17.7k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/intel-i5-4690k-processor/p/itmdyzqrusfkyqcz?pid=PSRDYY77HUTEU7ZW&otracker=from-search&srno=t_1&query=i5-4690k&ref=ea92a807-68d7-46f3-bb3e-f56b1fec565a

fx 8350: 13.6k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/search?q=fx+8350&as=off&as-show=off&otracker=start

gtx 970: 28.9k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/msi-nvidia-gtx-970-4gd5t-oc-4-gb-gddr5-graphics-card/p/itme2v2zvndunc42?pid=GRCE2V2ZQGJXNVU3&otracker=from-search&srno=t_6&query=gtx+970&ref=967a85c4-2cd7-4ef5-bbc5-904f8ebbfa6c

gtx 980: 48.9k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/msi-nvidia-gtx-980-gaming-4g-4-gb-gddr5-graphics-card/p/itmeytzfgzphdc24?pid=GRCEYTZF69RFBNCT&otracker=from-search&srno=t_5&query=gtx+980&ref=c1f018d6-437c-4dbc-880e-fb15bf577334

I kind of see an i7 4790k + gtx 970 at 53k Rs, while the fx 8350 + gtx 980 come at 63k Rs. Alternatively the i6 4690k + gtx 970 for just 47k Rs, which would be the best performance/price here, beating the fx 8350 in gaming and coming close in rendering.

 

[pomps74]

I would recommend the i7 with the gtx 970 since there is a upgrade path and it will be future proof for the next 3+ years. Sad to say that AM3+ and 990FX is dead. It is such an old architecture and becoming weaker and weaker as games develop. AMD has not mentioned any new CPU's for AM3+, but we have Broadwell coming up with Intel and Z97. GTX 980 may be stronger than GTX 970, but it will be held back by the FX.

 

[NightAntilli]

You can save yourself some money and go for the FX-8350 with the GTX 970 instead.

You can also switch the GTX 970 for the R9 290x if it's cheaper in your country.

 

[furiousss]

Its not an opinion its a fact. Its like comparing an Evo to a Civic SI. You dont compare the two and try to suggest some one to take a poor decision by going amd with 980 vs 4790k w/ 970.

970vs980 is not worth the price and that is a fact.

But a 4790k vs 8350 is worth that 100 bucks, difference (USA price)

In India the difference between fx 8350 and i7 4790k is INR 10000+ which is about $150+.Same is for gtx 970 and 980.

i7 4790k: 23.9k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/intel-i7-4790k-processor/p/itmdyzqrmagcf5pb

i5 4690k: 17.7k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/intel-i5-4690k-processor/p/itmdyzqrusfkyqcz?pid=PSRDYY77HUTEU7ZW&otracker=from-search&srno=t_1&query=i5-4690k&ref=ea92a807-68d7-46f3-bb3e-f56b1fec565a

fx 8350: 13.6k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/search?q=fx+8350&as=off&as-show=off&otracker=start

gtx 970: 28.9k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/msi-nvidia-gtx-970-4gd5t-oc-4-gb-gddr5-graphics-card/p/itme2v2zvndunc42?pid=GRCE2V2ZQGJXNVU3&otracker=from-search&srno=t_6&query=gtx+970&ref=967a85c4-2cd7-4ef5-bbc5-904f8ebbfa6c

gtx 980: 48.9k Rs
http://www.flipkart.com/msi-nvidia-gtx-980-gaming-4g-4-gb-gddr5-graphics-card/p/itmeytzfgzphdc24?pid=GRCEYTZF69RFBNCT&otracker=from-search&srno=t_5&query=gtx+980&ref=c1f018d6-437c-4dbc-880e-fb15bf577334

I kind of see an i7 4790k + gtx 970 at 53k Rs, while the fx 8350 + gtx 980 come at 63k Rs. Alternatively the i6 4690k + gtx 970 for just 47k Rs, which would be the best performance/price here, beating the fx 8350 in gaming and coming close in rendering.

look at snapdeal. you can get gtx 980 for 43k. and I don't like the armor 2x edition of msi gtx 970. I am only interested in msi gaming gtx 970 which is 32k or gtx 980.

So, the price balances.

 

[DubbleClick]

Fx 8350 with a gtx 970/r9 290x is a possibility, however, an I5 4590 on a cheap b85 board would absolutely suffice too (and actually beat the fx in games) and save even more money. While the r9 290x is a great card I'd always recommend about a gtx 980 or 780ti, it usually isn't noticeably cheaper than the gtx 970, does not beat it in the majority of benchmarks I've seen and does cost more money in the "long" run, like a year of gaming. We're looking at a 145w tdp for the gtx 970 and a 290w tdp on the r9 290x. Especially if you're gaming or stressing the gpu much, you'll easily save $100+ per year by choosing an I5/7 and a gtx 970 instead of a fx 8350 with a r9 290x.

 

[Onus]

A lot of people discount power usage in a gaming PC, but not everyone lives where electricity is cheap.

 

[khpura]

"For gaming, the fx 8350 is not a good choice. Almost no games benefit from the other 4 cores, and each core is less efficient then on any recent intel CPU. I am currently saving to move over to intel, even though the FX 8350 makes more sense with my situation (my cpu is super old), where my current motherboard supports it. I would rather save that money and get a current i5, intel is just that much better for games at the moment.

Would it work? yes, but as everyone else here is trying to say, its not optimal. If you are buying a new motherboard anyway, there is absolutely no reason to go AMD.

Also, you need to decide if you are going to be using 4k or not, I am currently doing 4k on a 970, and I have to turn a lot of stuff off in most games to make it work. You will want two 970s at a minimum to do 4k regardless of the processor you choose.

As for the 8 core argument, by the time games start effectively utilizing 8-core CPUs, there will be mainstream intel ones available, and by that time you will probably be looking for a new CPU anyway. The only valid argument for the 8350 is if you are doing heavy multithreaded tasks like using Solidworks or something."


Is it sad that AMD is trailing behind Intel like this. They need to up their Game in order to be competitive.